Two concepts should be banned in discussing boundary studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they’d just draw a radius of 3 miles all the way around a high school.

5 miles to hs is stupid.

Tell that to the families that live 7 miles from Whitman

They are rich and can afford to but their kids cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many factors to balance in determining a final call, MCPS should not consider two things:
1) Property value
2) Busing (the most terrible idea since its inception)

Property Value should be first. That is how we generate money to fund the schools. You idiot.

It’s one way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Busing is going to happen

It's insane to concentrate all the poverty in certain schools. These schools don't get any money to help them address these kids' needs. What a world we live in that rich people are so selfish they want to keep all the poor kids out of their school. Jfc

And we know it's not just about bus rides. There are zero options considering putting ToK at Einstein which is their closest school. It's about property values that everyone knows are propped up by the legacy of redlining.

The schools in the poorer areas get ALL the money! What are you even talking about? Title 1 schools get the funding. That’s how it works. maybe research before making comments. Have you been inside these schools in poor areas? Because they are in MUCH better condition with far more resources than the schools in the more affluent areas. They get priority for funding.

There are zero Title 1 or focus high schools, they absolutely do not get "all the money". In fact, wealthy schools have more experienced teachers who are paid more than less experienced teachers. None of this is tracked or accounted for in measures of per pupil funding, they just assign an average teacher cost, but personnel is by far the largest cost for schools.

And your statement about better conditions at high poverty schools is too ridiculous for words.

Have you been to the high poverty schools? because I have had to be in several for work and they are ALL in better condition then the higher rated schools my kids go to. So no it’s not ridiculous, it’s true.

I see. You see a few high poverty schools in good condition and you resent it because you think the wealthy schools should be nicer. Do any search for MCPS building conditions and you will find several examples of high poverty schools in such bad condition that they are a health hazard for students and staff.

Which neighborhoods are paying the taxes? Why shouldn't those kids get schools comparatively as nice as their homes?

Thank you for illustrating that what you think is that the schools with the highest needs should have the fewest resources

All the schools should get the same resources from the county. The neighborhoods should be allowed to chip in more if they want their school to be nicer.

What you are suggesting is privatizing public education.

It's actually a pretty common model in other parts of the country.

Yeah and those high poverty schools are horrible. The fact that you want that for MCPS is sociopathic

I think MCPS is a good case study of how this can backfire. As the quality of public schools drop, the rich will become less invested in the public schools as they move their kids to private. That leads them to use their political influence to fight taxes that would go to improve these schools. So, a death spiral.

You don't see this where there are town-based districts because the rich can take advantage of their own wealth while also getting state funding.

MCPS has successfully lobbied for tax increases several times in the last several years

County funding was stagnant from 2015-2023, sometimes even falling below inflation. Per pupil funding has risen slightly since, largely due a combination of making up for a loss of federal funding and lower enrollment.

Why should total inflation adjusted funding increase when enrollment is going down?

Districts have large fixed costs that still need to be covered even when there is reduced enrollment. And loaded labor costs are going up faster than inflation. This isn't an industry where technology can provide productivity improvements to offset those increased costs.

So yes, even setting aside new and increased needs, you should expect per-pupil funding to increase faster than inflation, especially when enrollment drops.

That's not a realistic expectation. Where do you think this money is coming from?

You have a short memory.

We've seen a dramatic shift in k-12 education spending over the last century. In the 1950s-1970s, k-12 spending grew faster than the GDP. In the decades since, it has fallen. There's plenty of money that could go to education.

What are we spending it on instead? Health care- especially for the elderly- is going up much faster than the GDP.

Basically, the boomers benefited from school funding in the past, and as they got older they diverted it to fund health care for themselves as they aged.

So your solution is for Montgomery County to cut Medicare and retiree health benefits for employees?

Do you think before you type? Ther cannot cut Medicare but they can reduce benefits to have the health care math the rest of the county as this is not sustainable.

So cut benefits for currently retired teachers and first responders? You'll have to talk to MCEA, IAFF as and FOP for that.

You don't need to cut those for current retirees because those are a problem for long-term stability. To address the short-term, we just need to raise education funding like we did in the 50s.

You mean raise taxes. Not just on rich people but on everyone.

And?

If you don't like that, get Maryland to allow counties to create tax brackets with different rates. It's ridiculous to have a flat rate anyway.

Raising taxes during a likely recession with thousands out of work is incredibly stupid and tone deaf

[Anonymous]

I think folks at MCPS and MCEA need to get their heads around the fact that a tax increase for schools is going to be a pretty hard sell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many factors to balance in determining a final call, MCPS should not consider two things:
1) Property value
2) Busing (the most terrible idea since its inception)

MCPS and the BOE do not co sider either of those 2 factors. Many inn-informed people who testify bring up property values, whis is an immediate turn off to the Board. Read the room, and advocate for what matters. To the Board of Education, property values ain't it.

They do not consider "busing," however they do consider walkability. So if your student is 1 mile from an ES, 1.5 miles from a MS, and 2 miles from a HS, they are in the walk zone for that school, which is seen as a positive. If there's a major road inbetween home and the school (Beltway, Georgia, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Old Georgetown, River, and others), even if close enough, they will get a bus

This is not true. Kids crossing Conn, Viers Mill, Georgia, Colesville Road don't get a bus. We don't get a bus and don't have sidewalks on top of crossing two dangerous roads. Maybe some schools get it but not all.

+1
When my kid is in high school she will have to cross University Blvd, a six lane road where multiple pedestrians have been killed, in order to get to school.

If you look at the walk zones on the interactive boundary tool for the Woodward study it is bizarre how small the walk zone is for Whitman. No, it's not because there are more dangerous roads there. Yes, River Road is dangerous, but so is University Blvd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many factors to balance in determining a final call, MCPS should not consider two things:
1) Property value
2) Busing (the most terrible idea since its inception)

MCPS and the BOE do not co sider either of those 2 factors. Many inn-informed people who testify bring up property values, whis is an immediate turn off to the Board. Read the room, and advocate for what matters. To the Board of Education, property values ain't it.

They do not consider "busing," however they do consider walkability. So if your student is 1 mile from an ES, 1.5 miles from a MS, and 2 miles from a HS, they are in the walk zone for that school, which is seen as a positive. If there's a major road inbetween home and the school (Beltway, Georgia, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Old Georgetown, River, and others), even if close enough, they will get a bus

This is not true. Kids crossing Conn, Viers Mill, Georgia, Colesville Road don't get a bus. We don't get a bus and don't have sidewalks on top of crossing two dangerous roads. Maybe some schools get it but not all.

+1
When my kid is in high school she will have to cross University Blvd, a six lane road where multiple pedestrians have been killed, in order to get to school.

If you look at the walk zones on the interactive boundary tool for the Woodward study it is bizarre how small the walk zone is for Whitman. No, it's not because there are more dangerous roads there. Yes, River Road is dangerous, but so is University Blvd.

One of the unfortunate things about these boundary studies is that they are just using the existing walk zones, rather than assessing whether they could be improved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many factors to balance in determining a final call, MCPS should not consider two things:
1) Property value
2) Busing (the most terrible idea since its inception)

MCPS and the BOE do not co sider either of those 2 factors. Many inn-informed people who testify bring up property values, whis is an immediate turn off to the Board. Read the room, and advocate for what matters. To the Board of Education, property values ain't it.

They do not consider "busing," however they do consider walkability. So if your student is 1 mile from an ES, 1.5 miles from a MS, and 2 miles from a HS, they are in the walk zone for that school, which is seen as a positive. If there's a major road inbetween home and the school (Beltway, Georgia, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Old Georgetown, River, and others), even if close enough, they will get a bus

This is not true. Kids crossing Conn, Viers Mill, Georgia, Colesville Road don't get a bus. We don't get a bus and don't have sidewalks on top of crossing two dangerous roads. Maybe some schools get it but not all.

+1
When my kid is in high school she will have to cross University Blvd, a six lane road where multiple pedestrians have been killed, in order to get to school.

If you look at the walk zones on the interactive boundary tool for the Woodward study it is bizarre how small the walk zone is for Whitman. No, it's not because there are more dangerous roads there. Yes, River Road is dangerous, but so is University Blvd.

One of the unfortunate things about these boundary studies is that they are just using the existing walk zones, rather than assessing whether they could be improved.

Right now walk zones are not based on consistent factors. It is about which communities have the most political power to advocate. Addressing that goes well beyond a boundary study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many factors to balance in determining a final call, MCPS should not consider two things:
1) Property value
2) Busing (the most terrible idea since its inception)

Property Value should be first. That is how we generate money to fund the schools. You idiot.

It’s one way.

You're right - it's property values and alcohol sales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many factors to balance in determining a final call, MCPS should not consider two things:
1) Property value
2) Busing (the most terrible idea since its inception)

MCPS and the BOE do not co sider either of those 2 factors. Many inn-informed people who testify bring up property values, whis is an immediate turn off to the Board. Read the room, and advocate for what matters. To the Board of Education, property values ain't it.

They do not consider "busing," however they do consider walkability. So if your student is 1 mile from an ES, 1.5 miles from a MS, and 2 miles from a HS, they are in the walk zone for that school, which is seen as a positive. If there's a major road inbetween home and the school (Beltway, Georgia, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Old Georgetown, River, and others), even if close enough, they will get a bus

This is not true. Kids crossing Conn, Viers Mill, Georgia, Colesville Road don't get a bus. We don't get a bus and don't have sidewalks on top of crossing two dangerous roads. Maybe some schools get it but not all.

+1
When my kid is in high school she will have to cross University Blvd, a six lane road where multiple pedestrians have been killed, in order to get to school.

If you look at the walk zones on the interactive boundary tool for the Woodward study it is bizarre how small the walk zone is for Whitman. No, it's not because there are more dangerous roads there. Yes, River Road is dangerous, but so is University Blvd.

One of the unfortunate things about these boundary studies is that they are just using the existing walk zones, rather than assessing whether they could be improved.

Right now walk zones are not based on consistent factors. It is about which communities have the most political power to advocate. Addressing that goes well beyond a boundary study.

Of course. But if one of the goals of the study is to maximize the number of walkers, then they should not be constrained by the current, unsatisfactory zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there places where the nearest high school is over four miles away?

That is an exception. I meant a general rule. I just do not like busing a long distance as a tool for balancing FARMS.

Np I disagree. I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% farms.

In my neighborhood there are two elementary schools 1 mile apart. One has only 1m+ sfhs and a few townhouses. The other has 1m homes and then a new apartment complex was built. It’s now 60% farms. I think there would be a massive benefit in balancing the schools. Only the sfhs are within walking distance to both schools. The apartments are already bused from a mile away.

What a fantastic example of how out of touch some people on the wealthier side of the county are. “I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% FARMS.” And also, we should let them eat cake!

Here in reality, 44% of the students in the county are eligible for FARMS.

If the county is 44% FARMS, they should mandate that every school have 44% FARMs. Instead of having one school be 80% FARM and one be 10%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no solution that meets everyone’s needs.

Bus rides are important, especially for lower income community members. Families without reliable transportation may not be able to attend school events and it can be a hardship if they need to pick up a child early or attend a meeting during the school day.

Property values shouldn’t be part of the discussion but I understand why they are. Most of us have most of our money invested in our homes. We stretched for a tiny fixer upper in Wootton. We could have spent less for a nicer house but sacrificed for the school. If school boundaries change, we will lose money we really can’t afford to lose. Do I think the BOE should care and factor that in? No. But I see why it’s hard for families to ignore.

I’ve long believed that all children have the right to a good education. They also have the right to safe school buildings. We are where we are because MCPS ignored decaying buildings for decades. There’s really no excuse.

No offense, but that means you stretched too far. There are other places you could have bought a small house that wouldn't have cost as much and then you wouldn't feel like you had so much to "lose."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there places where the nearest high school is over four miles away?

That is an exception. I meant a general rule. I just do not like busing a long distance as a tool for balancing FARMS.

Np I disagree. I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% farms.

In my neighborhood there are two elementary schools 1 mile apart. One has only 1m+ sfhs and a few townhouses. The other has 1m homes and then a new apartment complex was built. It’s now 60% farms. I think there would be a massive benefit in balancing the schools. Only the sfhs are within walking distance to both schools. The apartments are already bused from a mile away.

What a fantastic example of how out of touch some people on the wealthier side of the county are. “I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% FARMS.” And also, we should let them eat cake!

Here in reality, 44% of the students in the county are eligible for FARMS.

If the county is 44% FARMS, they should mandate that every school have 44% FARMs. Instead of having one school be 80% FARM and one be 10%.

I'd like to see some conceptual school boundaries based on this goal, because my guess is that they would be pretty ridiculous and require way longer bus rides than even its proponents realize. Because most of the schools with 10% FARMS are not adjacent to schools with 80% FARMS. There are other schools in the middle, many of which hover around the mean MCPS rates. There's a reason that no one is seriously proposing this outside of an anonymous message board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there places where the nearest high school is over four miles away?

That is an exception. I meant a general rule. I just do not like busing a long distance as a tool for balancing FARMS.

Np I disagree. I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% farms.

In my neighborhood there are two elementary schools 1 mile apart. One has only 1m+ sfhs and a few townhouses. The other has 1m homes and then a new apartment complex was built. It’s now 60% farms. I think there would be a massive benefit in balancing the schools. Only the sfhs are within walking distance to both schools. The apartments are already bused from a mile away.

What a fantastic example of how out of touch some people on the wealthier side of the county are. “I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% FARMS.” And also, we should let them eat cake!

Here in reality, 44% of the students in the county are eligible for FARMS.

We are at a high farms school. We don't care the farms numbers. What we care about is having access to the same classes and opportunities the other schools have! The nice thing about farms schools is that there isn't the wealth or competition for how you dress and other things.

If the county is 44% FARMS, they should mandate that every school have 44% FARMs. Instead of having one school be 80% FARM and one be 10%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there places where the nearest high school is over four miles away?

That is an exception. I meant a general rule. I just do not like busing a long distance as a tool for balancing FARMS.

Np I disagree. I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% farms.

In my neighborhood there are two elementary schools 1 mile apart. One has only 1m+ sfhs and a few townhouses. The other has 1m homes and then a new apartment complex was built. It’s now 60% farms. I think there would be a massive benefit in balancing the schools. Only the sfhs are within walking distance to both schools. The apartments are already bused from a mile away.

What a fantastic example of how out of touch some people on the wealthier side of the county are. “I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% FARMS.” And also, we should let them eat cake!

Here in reality, 44% of the students in the county are eligible for FARMS.

If the county is 44% FARMS, they should mandate that every school have 44% FARMs. Instead of having one school be 80% FARM and one be 10%.

I'd like to see some conceptual school boundaries based on this goal, because my guess is that they would be pretty ridiculous and require way longer bus rides than even its proponents realize. Because most of the schools with 10% FARMS are not adjacent to schools with 80% FARMS. There are other schools in the middle, many of which hover around the mean MCPS rates. There's a reason that no one is seriously proposing this outside of an anonymous message board.

the FARMS rates for Einstein and Wheaton are 2-3 times that of Walter Johnson which is adjacent to those clusters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there places where the nearest high school is over four miles away?

That is an exception. I meant a general rule. I just do not like busing a long distance as a tool for balancing FARMS.

Np I disagree. I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% farms.

In my neighborhood there are two elementary schools 1 mile apart. One has only 1m+ sfhs and a few townhouses. The other has 1m homes and then a new apartment complex was built. It’s now 60% farms. I think there would be a massive benefit in balancing the schools. Only the sfhs are within walking distance to both schools. The apartments are already bused from a mile away.

What a fantastic example of how out of touch some people on the wealthier side of the county are. “I don’t think they should let any school get over 15-20% FARMS.” And also, we should let them eat cake!

Here in reality, 44% of the students in the county are eligible for FARMS.

If the county is 44% FARMS, they should mandate that every school have 44% FARMs. Instead of having one school be 80% FARM and one be 10%.

I'd like to see some conceptual school boundaries based on this goal, because my guess is that they would be pretty ridiculous and require way longer bus rides than even its proponents realize. Because most of the schools with 10% FARMS are not adjacent to schools with 80% FARMS. There are other schools in the middle, many of which hover around the mean MCPS rates. There's a reason that no one is seriously proposing this outside of an anonymous message board.

the FARMS rates for Einstein and Wheaton are 2-3 times that of Walter Johnson which is adjacent to those clusters

I'd like to see anyone from WJ cluster going voluntarily to Einstein. Not for a special program but just for the kid to help the school with FARMS rate.